The Legality of the Mississippi Personhood Amendment 26

With the upcoming Mississippi elections, the ballot will contain an amendment that will make unborn fetuses, at conception, legal “persons” with all the rights of adult citizens. Needless to say it’s caused a lot of concern for pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates do not seem to realize how far-reaching the potential consequences of this amendment are.

My biggest concern is over Prop. 26.’s legality. Does it stand up to Roe v. Wade? Would it stand up in court or would it alter or destroy Roe v. Wade utterly?

At face value, the Mississippi proposition would reverse Roe v. Wade back to the original abortion statutes like those of Texas: outlawing abortions with the exception of protecting the mother’s life. The overwhelming purpose of this amendment would be to make an unborn fetus a legal “person.” Therefore, any unauthorized abortion would theoretically stand trial as murder.

In the Roe v. Wade opinion rendered by Justice Blackmun, the issue was whether or not the Texas Penal Code justifiably prevented abortions from taking place “except with respect to ‘an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.’” After careful review of case history, state statutes and revisiting ancient, common, canon, and classical law the Supreme Court determined that “the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.” The Court further concluded that most earlier abortion-related cases determined that the right to privacy included abortions, excluding vested state interest which, up to this point, was to protect the life and health of the mother. However, Roe v. Wade determined that the vested state interest, as practiced, vastly overstretched state boundaries into the private lives of its citizens, based on the ninth and fourteenth amendments.

The appellee and amici argued that the fetus is indeed a “person” under the language of the fourteenth amendment. The Court indeed conceded that if “personhood” were established, the appellant’s case would crumble. The fourteenth amendment however concludes that only persons “born” within United States boarders and naturalized citizens are persons. Based upon this language, the Court determined that an unborn child is not a legal “person.” Therefore, the Court granted relief to the appellant.

Based on Roe v. Wade, the goal of “Personhood” Amendment 26 is to circumvent the case’s rulings. If “personhood” is established for an unborn embryo or fetus, the state therefore holds a vested interest in protecting the life of that citizen. This will directly overrule the right to privacy for a pregnant woman who wishes to end her pregnancy.

This is not entirely illegal, but it does open the door for a costly and drawn-out legal battle. If Prop. 26 passes, I foresee a subsequent series of cases that will try to determine what exactly a “person” is.

What the far-right fails to notice, I think, is that it will also open the door for dreaded waves of “illegal immigrants” to enter the country who will be permitted to stay since they are carrying United States citizens in their wombs (note my sarcasm).

I discussed with a friend, a few days ago, that what Prop. 26 will also potentially do is flood and clog the social and community services of Mississippi, making it nearly impossible to function and perform their duties. It will cost Mississippi taxpayers to hire new social workers, expand bureaucracies and effectively kill the gains of reproductive rights in the state.

My own district representative, Steven Palazzo, approves of this amendment. However, does he realize the unintended consequences this amendment will bring? It doesn’t sound so.

This will also set the stage for a redefinition of the Constitution, specifically the fourteenth amendment. If this issue is ever set before the Supreme Court, and the Court decides that “personhood” is applicable to embryos and fetuses, then the rights of women to decide whether to terminate their pregnancies will be irrevocably damaged.

Regardless, the far-right does not care about the constitutionality of Prop. 26. I refer to the following video…

To the far-right, it is not a question about women’s rights, it is not a question about constitutionality, it is about the prevailing religious ideals that they feel should dictate how our citizens conduct themselves.WAKE UP PEOPLE! VOTE NO ON 26 IN NOVEMBER!